| || |
This is a discussion on Psychological Egoism within the Type 3 Forum - The Achiever forums, part of the Heart Triad - Types 2,3,4 category; Originally Posted by crazyeddie That might not be a good definition. Psychological egoism claims that all actions are ultimately motivated ...
A psychological eqoist would say that while it would might give you a good feeling in the moment it would make you feel like crap later on and that is the reason you did not force him to eat the chips.
Why should they be respected? Because it is what was taught to you and you want to pass these down to newer generations? That is selfish, or so the argument of psychological eqoism would state. And actually, a better way to put it would not be 'selfish' as I have been calling it but a better term would probably be 'self-interest' which I believe psychological eqoism states as well, correct me if I am wrong on my terminology @crazyeddieBut I'm serious, though. I did not force him because he has personal boundaries and private rights that should be respected.
As I stated above it's not so much about selfishness but more about self-interests. Self-interests are not considered to be the same thing as selfishness.This is where the psychological egoism doesn't make sense to me, because the theory ignores the external environment for decision making process of selfishness. It just stop in the "selfishness" point of view, without considering the dynamic of human interaction.
I want the other person to be happy, but why? Why do I want this person that is not me to be happy? Because it is within my self-interests that they have the best life/experience/whatever they can possibly have. You can argue that because they are happy you are happy and this in turn directly ties in both of your self-interests but yours are still in there as well.
I am suggesting that there is no "other" other than what we project onto our minds about the other. So, there can be no other-directed interests, only self-interest, when decisions are made using our mind.
Pretty much ANYTHING that anyone does can be in some way interpreted as psychological egotism. Humans are selfish, it's nothing new.
Why do you not have a choice? You always have a choice. It can be argued, like I have done above, that his happiness means more to you because you want him to have a good life and because you want him to have a good life it becomes your self-interest to go with his happiness over yours.
Not selfish, just self-interest, completely different. I doubt I need to, but if I do let me know if you want some definitions.For example, the chips I bought is actually contains an ingredient that he does not like (e.g chili), so he throw the chips away. He's happy for doing that, I'm sad, but I know I can't force him to eat the chips anyway, so I decided to let him do that. In what way that my decision has a selfish intention?
If you truly believe that you cannot force him to eat the chips then it is in your self-interests to just drop the subject as it would bring more annoyance/sadness/whatever later on down the road.